Hildreth Institute Provides Testimony to the Joint Committee on Racial Equity, Civil Rights, and Inclusion Informational Hearing on the Impact of Federal Actions on Equity in Higher Education (Copy)
Dear Chair Miranda, Chair Williams, Vice-Chairs, and Members of the Committee,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on the evolving and deeply concerning threats to equitable access and success in higher education, threats that stem from recent federal actions that undermine the infrastructure supporting our most underserved students: low-income, first-generation, and underrepresented students of color.
As Managing Director of the Hildreth Institute, a nonprofit policy organization dedicated to advancing equity in higher education in Massachusetts, I monitor how shifts in federal and state policy affect student access, persistence, and success. With this testimony, I want to shed light on the compounding threats we face, from federal cuts to need-based aid and early outreach programs, to sweeping changes in student loan repayment systems. I will also offer strategic recommendations for how Massachusetts can proactively shield the gains we have made and uphold our commitments to equity.
The Stakes for Massachusetts
To ground this conversation, it’s important to understand what’s at stake. Each year, Massachusetts students receive approximately $700 million in federal grants and $2.82 billion in federal student loans. These investments are not optional, they are foundational to the state’s efforts to close opportunity gaps and promote economic mobility. While not all of this funding is at risk of elimination, recent proposals threaten significant portions of it. Cuts, rollbacks, and administrative obstacles risk reversing decades of hard-won progress in expanding college access and success.
I. GEAR UP and TRIO: Proven Pathways at Risk
While less well-known outside education circles, GEAR UP (Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs) and TRIO represent some of the most effective, equity-centered programs in higher education.
TRIO, a family of eight federally funded outreach and support programs launched in the 1960s, serves students from middle school through graduate school. These programs support disconnected youth, adult learners, and veterans as they navigate academic planning, admissions, and financial aid. GEAR UP, launched in 1998, supports entire cohorts of middle and high school students—fostering a college-going culture early in their educational journey.
These programs are not just well-intentioned—they are proven.
In Massachusetts:
GEAR UP serves over 6,300 students annually with approximately $5 million in federal support
TRIO serves over 20,000 students across 61 programs, with $23 million in funding—40% of which supports community college students
Source: Massachusetts Department of Higher Education [citation needed]
For further detail, I encourage the Committee to consult our TRIO Programs Factsheet and interactive map, which illustrate the distribution of TRIO programs across Massachusetts, associated funding levels, student reach, and the potential consequences of program elimination.
Despite their impact, the President’s FY2026 budget proposes eliminating both GEAR UP and TRIO—cutting a staggering $1.6 billion in national support. The justification? That “access is no longer an obstacle.” But this is disconnected from Massachusetts’ reality:
Low-income and Latino students in the Commonwealth enroll in college at rates 30 percentage points lower than their more affluent or white peers.
Black students face a 12-point gap compared to white students.
Further, the U.S. Department of Education has already terminated over 100 GEAR UP and TRIO grants mid-cycle, reportedly citing compliance issues related to anti-discrimination laws. However, the interpretation and enforcement of these laws have been widely criticized as inconsistent and politically motivated. These actions target programs that have followed long-standing federal guidance to prioritize support for low-income, first-generation, and BIPOC students. Several Massachusetts programs are believed to have been directly affected, though the full impact remains opaque.
Compounding the harm, repeated delays in funding disbursements and heightened uncertainty around future support have forced many institutions to let go of staff tied to these programs. The inability to guarantee continued employment—despite high student demand—has led to the loss of essential advisors, mentors, and program coordinators, undermining service continuity and leaving programs functionally impaired. For many TRIO and GEAR UP sites, this staffing instability has translated into reduced student outreach, fewer support services, and weakened capacity to achieve their missions, even before formal cuts take effect.
While the current government shutdown has raised alarms, it’s important to note that TRIO programs are forward-funded. That means most grantees can continue operations, at least in the short term, drawing on prior-year appropriations.
II. Financial Aid Cuts: Eroding the Foundation of Affordability
The Federal Pell Grant, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (SEOG), and Federal Work-Study represent the cornerstone of college affordability for low- and moderate-income students.
The Pell Grant is the cornerstone need-based financial aid—it provides up to $7,395 per year to students with the greatest financial need. Pell does not need to be repaid and is the single largest source of aid for low-income students nationwide.
The Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG) offers additional aid to the lowest-income students, and it is administered through colleges. Students can receive between $100 and $4,000 per year, depending on their financial situation, other aid received, and the availability of funds at their school.
The Federal Work-Study (FWS) program helps students earn money through part-time campus jobs, building experience while offsetting living costs.
Together, these programs make up a critical foundation for equity in access and persistence. Yet, under the Trump administration’s “One Big Beautiful Bill,” these pillars are under direct threat.
The proposed FY2026 federal budget would:
Cut Pell Grants by 23%, reducing the maximum award from $7,395 to $5,710
Eliminate SEOG entirely
Cut Work-Study funding by 37%
And most importantly, a 23% cut to Pell would have far-reaching consequences, undermining Massachusetts’ new tuition-free college initiatives—including MassReconnect, MassEducate, and MassGrant Plus.
These state programs were designed to fill the gap after Pell, not replace it. When Pell shrinks, that gap widens. The state must either increase its investment—or watch more students fall through the cracks.
The impact would be felt most acutely by Black, Latino, first-generation, and parenting students.nMassachusetts has just seen a surge in community college enrollment thanks to these programs, but that progress is fragile.
For more detail, please refer to our Factsheet, “Pell Grants Under Threat: Impacts for Massachusetts,” where we model several policy scenarios and quantify their potential effects on Massachusetts students and institutions, including estimated funding losses and student impact figures.
Without sustained support, the promise of tuition-free college will begin to unravel, threatening the very equity gains these programs were meant to achieve.
But even as we look to Washington, Massachusetts must also ensure that it is upholding its own promises. The state’s new tuition-free college programs were designed with a progressive stipend structure: offering $1,200 for books and supplies to all eligible students, and an additional $1,200 to Pell-eligible students to help defray living expenses.
These programs have been victims of their own success. They were projected to boost enrollment, which they did, two years in a row. Yet, they were level-funded by the state. This year, there are simply more students than dollars, forcing cuts to essential financial aid programs: emergency and completion grants have been eliminated, and stipends for the lowest-income students have dropped by up to $400.
While these may sound like small amounts, recent survey data show that even a $500 reduction in aid can derail the continued enrollment of one in five students. That is not a marginal effect—it’s a warning. If Massachusetts wants to protect the progress it has made toward equitable college access, it must plan for growing enrollment and potential federal aid cuts. Critical support for the most underserved students must be preserved through these turbulent times.
III. Student Loans: Repayment Reforms Reversed
Student loans are often the only available option for students who exhaust grant aid, especially at four-year and graduate institutions. But because race and income are deeply intertwined, this system has become a powerful engine of racial inequality.
Black students bear the heaviest burden: 85% of Black bachelor’s graduates borrow, typically owing $25,000 more than white peers—nearly double the amount after four years. Nearly half delay homeownership, and many owe more than their total net worth.
Some progress had been made under the last administration, with expanded repayment protections and targeted cancellations. But the current administration has reversed course. The so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill” and a wave of administrative rollbacks have made borrowing more restricted, repayment more costly, and debt relief harder to reach, hitting hardest those already struggling.
For more detailed analysis of the student loan changes under the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” I encourage the Committee to review Protect Borrowers’ Deep Dive: The OBBBA Law Makes Paying for College More Expensive and Risky, which outlines how the new law restricts federal borrowing, phases out key income‑driven repayment plans, and shifts cost burdens to students and families.
In short, the so-called "One Big Beautiful Bill" includes provisions that:
Eliminate Graduate PLUS loans, capping borrowing far below the cost of most graduate programs, threatening diversity in medicine, law, education, and other public interest careers
Replace all income-driven repayment (IDR) plans with a less generous "Repayment Assistance Plan" (RAP), featuring:Higher income-based payments
Longer repayment terms
Fewer deferment options
Restoration of taxes on forgiven balances
Borrowers with graduate degrees could see monthly payments rise by $750–$1,000, while typical undergraduate borrowers could face an additional $4,000 per year in repayment costs.
Simultaneously, administrative dysfunction has deepened:
The Department of Education has paused IDR applications, resumed interest accrual, and fired 50% of its staff (over 1,300 employees)
Loan servicing is collapsing, with delays, errors, and missing applications
The Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program is under threat of revision through an executive order that restricts qualifying employment, particularly for nonprofits deemed politically controversial
In an even more drastic move, President Trump’s executive order to dismantle the Department of Education raises grave concerns. Although the Department cannot legally be eliminated without an act of Congress, its downsizing and proposed transfer of the student loan program to the Small Business Administration threaten program continuity, oversight, and accountability.
IV. Strategic Options for Massachusetts
While federal policy shifts remain beyond our control, Massachusetts can continue to lead the nation by strengthening its own infrastructure for equitable higher education. The following opportunities build on existing state priorities and successful initiatives, and are designed to ensure that recent progress is sustained even amid federal uncertainty.
1. Strengthen FAFSA and College Advising Infrastructure
Given the uncertainty surrounding federal programs such as TRIO and GEAR UP, it would be prudent for the Commonwealth to reinforce local advising capacity. Expanding FAFSA completion support and college guidance, particularly in high schools, community-based organizations, and adult education hubs, can help ensure that students continue to access financial aid and navigate complex enrollment processes. These efforts would complement existing state initiatives and provide a safety net should federal outreach funding diminish.
2. Expand Proven Student Success and Wraparound Programs
The Massachusetts SUCCESS initiative has demonstrated measurable gains in retention and completion for underrepresented community college students through coaching, mentoring, and targeted support. However, the program currently reaches fewer than 8% of eligible students. Scaling this model, in alignment with recommendations from the CHEQA Commission, would extend its benefits systemwide and reinforce the Commonwealth’s commitment to data-driven, evidence-based student success strategies.
3. Develop a “Hold Harmless” Mechanism for Federal Aid Volatility
To enhance predictability in financial planning, the Legislature might explore a “hold harmless” policy that automatically increases state student aid allocations when federal funding declines. Such a safeguard would protect both students and institutions from abrupt disruptions, allowing campuses to maintain continuity in essential student support services.
4. Align Fair Share Revenues with Higher Education Equity Goals
Finally, the Commonwealth’s new Fair Share surtax revenues, projected at roughly $3 billion annually, offer an opportunity to reinforce higher education’s role in social and economic mobility. Allocating even a modest share of these funds (for example, one quarter, or approximately $750 million) toward access, affordability, and student success initiatives would create a stabilizing cushion against federal retrenchment and sustain Massachusetts’ leadership in higher education equity.
Conclusion
While we cannot control decisions in Washington, we can plan for them. With thoughtful investment, Massachusetts can remain a leader in equitable higher education, ensuring all students have not only access to college, but the support to complete it.
Thank you for your time and for your steadfast commitment to a more just and inclusive higher education system.
Sincerely,
Dr. Bahar Akman Imboden
Managing Director
Hildreth Institute
